사기
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The defendant shall pay 294,000 won to the FG who is an applicant for compensation.
The above compensation order shall be.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor and four months) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the records and arguments of the instant case, even if considering the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal, the lower court’s punishment is too unlimited and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
B. The FG, an applicant for compensation, filed a request for compensation order against the Defendant at the trial, “from February 23, 2019 to the delivery date of a copy of the application for compensation order, 5% per annum from February 23, 2019 to the delivery date of a copy of the application for compensation order, and from the next day to the full payment date, 15% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.”
However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant can be found to have obtained 294,000 won from the applicant for compensation by fraud as stated in the facts constituting a crime (2019Da5195) in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay 294,000 won to the applicant for compensation by fraud.
However, it is difficult to see that the damages for delay filed by the applicant for compensation in the case of the party's application for compensation order falls under the direct damage caused by the criminal act of this case and the damages for delay caused by fraudulentation is not the part claiming damages for delay.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's application for compensation is with merit within the scope mentioned above. Thus, Article 25 (1) and (3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings